Writes Jack Turban, a psychiatrist, in "Not Everyone Thinks About Gender the Same Way. Here’s One Way to Talk About It" (NYT).
"The next part of our gender identity is the social domain.... Maybe you were raised to think women are nurturing, passive and creative while men are assertive and strong... For some people, rejecting gender role stereotypes is even more vital to their gender identity than adhering to them.... The third part of gender identity... how we feel about our bodies. Some people identify as transgender and are happy with their bodies. Others are distressed by their gendered physical attributes. They may feel that their deepening voices or the shapes of their chests are at odds with their senses of self.... [M]any people have gender-related concerns about their chests, but not their genitals.... The three domains of transcendent sense of gender, social gender and our relationships to our physical bodies can combine in nearly infinite ways.... [W]e need to appreciate this complexity. It may even help us understand our own identities in ways we never have before."
Posts
41 comments:
You can rebel against nature.
For most it does not work out well.
A huge majority of people who suffer from gender dysphoria would benefit from counseling and affirmation of their physical reality.
The L, G and B need to separate from mental disorder.
I think all of that is probably true. The disagreement comes with people who endeavor so strongly to convince the many (young) people who don't have these feelings, to have them.
This talk didn't exist 20 years ago. I submit that all this trans business is driven by three things: 1. Mental illness; 2. Faddism; and 3. Obamacare forced Medicaid and insurance companies to pay for this trans surgery and treatment.
Maybe you were raised to think women are nurturing, passive and creative while men are assertive and strong...
This absurdly rejects the notion that people *notice* sex traits, and clumsily insists that they were merely forced, tricked or "raised to think" a certain way.
And he does this while instructing us on the proper way to think and talk about these traits. 'You were raised to think THIS. You should have been raised to think THAT.'
I appreciate complexity. But this is what poker players call a "tell."
Agent Smith: "Human beings define their reality through suffering and misery"
..."The L, G and B need to separate from mental disorder."
Suggest that should be completed with:
The L, G and B need to separate from mental disorder, lest they be grouped together to share the diagnosis of mental illness."
Not that I'm advocating that it's true, just that I think the monstrous social pressure to accede to the demands of the gender warriors needs to be redirected. I'm a little curious why the LGB community would have agreed to this solidarity in the first place - from what I've read, many in that community disagree.
so, just to be clear..
IF a person has "dysphoria".. the answer is: medication and surgery.
Serious Question for our Canadian posters..
is "dysphoria" a condition that justifies Medical Assistance In Dying?
Or is "dysphoria" the exception to the rule? If So? WHY?
ps. the Canadian Government NOW says
"Eligibility for MAID for persons suffering solely from a mental illness has been delayed until March 17, 2027.
BUT!
If you have a mental illness along with other medical conditions, you may be eligible for MAID.
Definition: Psychiatry is the branch of medicine focused on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders.
Given the scope and the goals, one can only conclude we're dealing with a failed discipline.
Remaining questions (had a bunch of typos in prior comments!):
What does it mean to "feel male or female?"
Turban says "Maybe you were raised to think women are nurturing, passive and creative while men are assertive and strong." What if these inclinations (nurturing, strength, assertiveness) aren't entirely the domain of social conditioning, but are more intrinsic? Does that matter, or is that itself interesting? If a person was objectively "assertive" but "felt" passive, what implications would/should that have for one's "gender identity?"
Further, he says "[I]t’s hard to describe this transcendent feeling in words. But it is the foundation of our gender identity...." If it's hard top to put to words, is it equally difficult to measure? If it's hard to measure, how can science study it with confidence?
Why is "gender identity" more important that the biological aspects/purposes of sex--which exist at the most fundamental level of biology for reproduction? Why are some people indexing so highly on the "gender identity" aspects against and in conflict with their biology?
I don't think anyone would seriously contest the idea that people (or evan mammals, broadly), are sexed with a binary, nor would they contest that some people are more nurturing or aggressive or... whatever. Those are two separate, but maybe related, aspects of a animal/human. Nothing revolutionary there....
So crazy that the people experimenting on children, both emotionally and physically, are not tarred and feathered, but that’s where we are.
Self focus destroys people.
People would be happier if they thought about this stuff way less.
Used to be that if your personality rebelled against gender stereotypes, then you didn’t follow gender stereotypes. That’s it. You were your own person and for the most part, everyone else was fine with that. Now gender gets an absurdly narrow definition and every deviation from it gets its own gender. You don’t get to be your own person so much as you get your own label.
Gender dysphoria was rare because people didn’t think their breasts were their identity. Now we are taught that your body is a reflection of who you are and it has to accommodate your feelings even at the cost of surgery. You’re a bigot if you don’t approve of people committing violence against their own bodies.
Quaestor: "Definition: Psychiatry is the branch of medicine focused on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders."
After Oedipal Complex, recovered memories and now transgendersim, your definition needs to expand to include "invention, promotion and profit from" mental disorders.
That's a hot field.
It's Nazi youth without the Nazi part.
He's confusing sex and gender under Diversity (e.g. racism, sexism). Gender refers to sex-correlated attributes (e.g. sexual orientation). Transgender refers to a state or process of divergence that seeks normalization under political congruence ("=") and profit through forward-looking medical, surgical, and psychiatric corruption priced through shared responsibility. The majority are harmed by the practices and will entertain abortive ideation. The remainder may unpredictably experience some benefit. The best outcome is that boys and girls will outgrow the dysfunctional feelings and influencers with permanent injury wrought through gender denying care.
It seems to me that no male can really know what it is to feel female, and no female, male. None of us have had the chance to experience the other one fully and completely to then compare and contrast and then choose the one we like. It's not like we can test drive each and then choose.
No, all we can do is say we don't like what we have, and maybe it's because we reject the social norms that come with the physical attributes that define us.
You can LARP the other gender all you want, but you have not changed anything any more than a person pretending to be 16th century nobility is actually 16th century nobility, or a cat or an elf or a wizard.
Quaestor said...
Definition: Psychiatry is the branch of medicine focused on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders.
Given the scope and the goals, one can only conclude we're dealing with a failed discipline.
The problem is that people who become Psychiatrists are more often than not average by definition.
That means they have little self awareness.
That leads them to use themselves as the relative anchor to describe "normal."
The first thing a psychiatrist needs to be able to do is to create a persona that is neutral and unattached. But this touches on the biggest problem and danger of psychiatry in general.
The homosexual et al individuals are in the transgender spectrum. Where the two groups differ is the former condition is stable with rare exceptions, and the latter are unstable with rare exceptions.
The psychiatrist further conflates social influenced and gender determined roles, a common failure in the woke of social progress and the sustained viability of handmade tales.
This is such bullshit.
I have never 'felt' female.
I would bet a million dollars that none of my male friends have ever felt female.
And that includes the gay ones.
One cannot feel "male" or "female" unless there is some standard by which "male" and "female" have any meaning. There is, of course, the objective standard of the human body, made male or female. There is also subjective social stereotyping, which is a form of irrational prejudice. But those are the only two standards really (leaving aside mentally ill detachments from reality or ideology).
Gender "identity" is biological alchemy.
Unfortunately, with enough government money and media fascination, the "science" is settled.
As a friend of mine with a degree in psychology said "Most people get into psychology to try to figure out what is wrong with themselves."
If you can't reproduce results, it's failed "science".
Quaestor:
Definition: Psychiatry is the branch of medicine focused on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders.
The problem comes with step 1: Two psychiatrists can diagnose the same person with two disparate mental conditions. It's not science.
robother:
After Oedipal Complex, recovered memories and now transgendersim, your definition needs to expand to include "invention, promotion and profit from" mental disorders.
I'd correct that to "search for profit, invent a cause, promote".
As I have noted before, no one really knows what it is to be male or female generally. You only know what it is to be you. The idea that you think you are something different than your genetics is absurd as there is no point of reference.
Making life altering decisions based on stereotypes and discomfort with normal biological processes is extremely unwise. Advising someone to make life altering decisions based on same is evil.
"Here’s One Way to Talk About It"
Well, there's your problem, right there. Used to be, people didn't think it was necessary to constantly talk about their thoughts on sex/gender. You could actually go for days at a time without hearing about it from anybody.
Acceptance is underrated.
Biden missed his chance.
He should have blamed his terrible debate on gender dysphoria.
people often just feel male or female
...
"The next part of our gender identity is the social domain.... Maybe you were raised to think women are nurturing, passive and creative while men are assertive and strong... For some people, rejecting gender role stereotypes is even more vital to their gender identity than adhering to them.
You can not "feel male" unless you've first embraced those gender role stereotypes.
Because without gender role stereotypes, I just "feel like" Greg. It's only by adding in those gender role stereotypes, and demanding that everyone adhere to them, that you can turn that into "feeling like a (wo)man"
So, like, what fraction of psychiatrists, would you say, are crazy? 80%? 90%?
If you can't reproduce results, it's failed "science".
If you can't reproduce, you're at an evolutionary dead end...
NYT ought to stick to inseams instead of trying to normalize gender dysphoria.
That's a fish dream, said Yossarian.
So, if you feel like a female today and then feel like a male tomorrow, your gender flips back and forth? Young infants and demented oldsters don't think about 'gender' one way or the other (they don't think about much of anything), and certainly have no 'feelings' about it. So, are we supposed to say that they don't have a 'gender'? Who thinks about 'gender' -- which just means 'sex' in ordinary discourse -- let alone speaks about it that way? A person's gender is just their sex, male or female, and it's not something that gets 'assigned.' If a doctor makes a mistake on a birth certificate, a male baby doesn't suddenly become female because of the 'misassignment.'. Biology matters, as any reality-based observer knows. Alas, the language police have an agenda, and so these kinds of objections to the insane discourse surrounding 'gender,' all on display in this psychiatrist's pitch, are just shouted down.
The approved trans-affirming way of talking about 'gender' amounts to a war on ordinary language -- intentionally confusing stereotypical conduct associated with men or women in a particular society -- i.e., how a person presents -- with a person's sex. BTW, try that trick with race -- Rachel Dolezal, here's calling you -- by claiming on a government form that you're black because that's how you feel today, even though your 'assigned' race at birth was the oh-so-dreaded whiteness. Not likely to turn out well.
"Identity" is another term getting a similarly distorted work-over. It masquerades as a discussion about a person's 'true self,' but what is that? Not something that a doctor can find hidden in the recesses of your brain. What it usually means is the persisting psychological qualities that are associated with a person -- assertive or not; generous, kind, gregarious or not; and the like. It's not a matter of feelings.
Must be a year ago now - I was reading some excerpt of a Reddit thread or whatever they're called, in which a young person was seeking advice from some somewhat older people on the subject of transition.
This young person, natal male, was experimenting with presenting a female public persona. You know, cross-dressing. He went into a women's dressing room for the first time to try on girl clothes, and to his surprise? chagrin? he got an erection. He was asking the other Redditors if there was something wrong with him.
The universal reply was no, this was normal. As one respondent said, (s)he had had the same experience and had been told by an older person that it was just a "euphoria boner," brought on by the sheer joy of finally appearing as (s)he wanted to.
You know, autogynophilia.
I asked my husband if he's ever had a "euphoria boner." He looked at me as if I'd sprouted an extra ear and said, "That's not a thing."
Wonder how many doctors would amputate a teenager's right hand if he or she wanted it.
The insanity of rights to become imaginary genders and multiple sexes all have a single goal: sterilization at the earliest age the better to cut future population numbers. Nothing else is achieved by it.
Fight for your family lines intelligence to procreate.
Arrow of causality is backwards in this NYT piece
If you're born female, how in the world do you know what it "feels like" to be a man? And vice versa.
"I'm a little curious why the LGB community would have agreed to this solidarity in the first place - from what I've read, many in that community disagree."
Most didn't, and many are turning against it because they see the backlash. As to why anyone agreed to it at some point, it was to keep their jobs. After Obergefell, there was no reason for Lambda Legal, GLAAD, etc., to exist. They'd won, and they'd won big. They needed a new cause if they wanted to remain in operation, and guess what came along at just the right time?
Post a Comment